The premise that explains the wife's inductive reasoning for determining her husband's level of safety at work will be,
The wife assumes that her husband's employer has insured him with retirement and health benefits.
<h3>What is inductive reasoning?</h3>
When a person or an individual makes assumptions regarding an observation based on a general principle that is derived through the course of such assumptions in known as inductive reasoning.
In the given example, it can be concluded that the wife has derived a general principle that it is safe for her husband to continue his job as he has high level of personal and financial safety at his work.
Hence, the significance of inductive reasoning is aforementioned.
Learn more about the inductive reasoning here:
brainly.com/question/16685989
#SPJ1
Answer:
Name and Two laws and legislation that protect citizens against the specific human trafficking
1. I’ve seen that film before.
seen would be the correct one in this place, because they have previously seen, and it goes with the abbreviation i’ve!
see is present tense, so we wouldn’t be using it in this case if they have seen it previously, and aren’t watching now!
saw goes with i saw, not i’ve! so i’ve saw would not make sense in this case.
2. Tom hasn’t worked here for long.
not wouldn’t make sense in this case, because it means basically no. it’s like saying tom no work here, we are not trying to say that.
havent wouldn’t make sense either, it is a past/present form talking about what has happened.
3. Where has James put my bag?
this one is the correct one. the others have misplaced words and are not grammatically correct!
hope this helped:)
